PDA

View Full Version : Sam Bradford Redskins Issue


cdmPSU17
02-16-2010, 11:45 AM
Maybe this is a bit trivial or even dumb, but would Sam Bradford have a problem playing for the Redskins considering he is Native American? He is an official member of the Cherokee Nation, although I am not sure of their official stance on the issue.

DeathbyStat
02-16-2010, 11:46 AM
Maybe this is a bit trivial or even dumb, but would Sam Bradford have a problem playing for the Redskins considering he is Native American? He is an official member of the Cherokee Nation, although I am not sure of their official stance on the issue.

Sorry I'm not trying to be a jerk....but yeah he will turn down 40 million in gurrantees on moral grounds

yourfavestoner
02-16-2010, 11:47 AM
Sorry I'm not trying to be a jerk....but yeah he will turn down 40 million in gurrantees on moral grounds

Winner winner chicken dinner.

FlyingElvis
02-16-2010, 11:47 AM
For the money he'd make as the 4th overall pick I'm willing to bet he'd manage.

Haven't heard anything about it, though.

FrankGore
02-16-2010, 12:08 PM
If he goes there, he'll take some crap for it or so that they're just his employer and he doesn't necessarily agree with the name. I don't anticipate it being significant.

senormysterioso
02-16-2010, 12:36 PM
it's an interesting point to raise, i hadn't thought about it. I doubt he'd refuse to sign or anything but if he spoke up about it, he might rub some of the fanbase the wrong way and sort of risk alienating them. I wouldn't blame him though if he did speak out, I wouldn't want to play for a team with a pejorative slur as a nickname.

edit: i found this interview

Does Bradford have a problem with Redskins? (http://www.hogshaven.com/2010/2/3/1291183/sam-bradford-might-have-problems)

OneToughGame
02-16-2010, 12:47 PM
it's an interesting point to raise, i hadn't thought about it. I doubt he'd refuse to sign or anything but if he spoke up about it, he might rub some of the fanbase the wrong way and sort of risk alienating them. I wouldn't blame him though if he did speak out, I wouldn't want to play for a team with a pejorative slur as a nickname.

edit: i found this interview

Does Bradford have a problem with Redskins? (http://www.hogshaven.com/2010/2/3/1291183/sam-bradford-might-have-problems)

He said "you know" a lot in that interview.

FlyingElvis
02-16-2010, 12:54 PM
He said "you know" a lot in that interview.

Hahaa. It was painful to read.


I agree with the comment that gets mentioned. Bradford likely doesn't care so much, since he'll be getting filthy rich off the Redskins name. But he will be stuck in terrible spot b/c he can't alienate the team, fans, and owners by saying it's wrong and he can't say it's ok b/c he'll draw the ire of the Native American community.

Babylon
02-16-2010, 01:04 PM
He's 1/16th native American, maybe he can take one game off a year in protest. Having we been down this road before with Bradford?.

On an unrelated topic i hope the Skins take him so he isnt there for the Seahawks to contemplate.

Caddy
02-16-2010, 01:05 PM
Does the 'Redskins' aspect of the Washington franchise actually bother anyone?

FlyingElvis
02-16-2010, 01:10 PM
Does the 'Redskins' aspect of the Washington franchise actually bother anyone?

No. Of course, I'm not of Native American descent.

But I probably wouldn't be thrilled if, say, the Jags moved to Arkansas and renamed the franchise the "Whip Crackers."

BuddyCHRIST
02-16-2010, 02:42 PM
Does the 'Redskins' aspect of the Washington franchise actually bother anyone?

It bothers me, and I'm not one to be bother by this type of stuff at all. But I think its ridiculous they are allowed to have the name, and its only because of how much money they make. Its a negative slur, its pretty damn similar to have a team called the N word. I am 1/8th native american but that really doesnt have anything to do with why it bothers me (as I don't really identify with it).

WMD
02-16-2010, 02:43 PM
Does the 'Redskins' aspect of the Washington franchise actually bother anyone?
Considering it's a derogatory term for the color of Native Americans skin, I think it bothers quite a few people.

FloridaFootball
02-16-2010, 02:57 PM
It bothers me, and I'm not one to be bother by this type of stuff at all. But I think its ridiculous they are allowed to have the name, and its only because of how much money they make. Its a negative slur, its pretty damn similar to have a team called the N word. I am 1/8th native american but that really doesnt have anything to do with why it bothers me (as I don't really identify with it).

who cares about what native americans think is offensive. i thought we established this a long time ago.

Joking aside, using the term redskins is nothing like having the 'n' word as a team name. it is not racist, anymore then the Washington Bullets contributed to gun violence. I think we are very respectful of Native Americans. We don't have some goofy indian like they have in Cleveland. Our icon is a proud, stoic Chief. We don't do the chop or that song Braves fans do. We sing Hail to the Redskins

I hate people who are looking for something to be offended about.

senormysterioso
02-16-2010, 03:09 PM
Oh man, I don't even wanna touch this debate...but, nobody is allowed to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to be offended by. By the same token, nobody has the right to go through life without being offended. I understand the history and traditions...but if I was an NFL franchise I wouldn't want my teams nickname to be an ethnic slur. The American Indian population is such a small demographic that they get overlooked and basically **** on a lot.

Jughead10
02-16-2010, 03:12 PM
Considering it's a derogatory term for the color of Native Americans skin, I think it bothers quite a few people.

St John's had to change their mascot for the same reason. They used to me the Redmen before the Red Storm. Basically the same as Redskins.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
02-16-2010, 03:12 PM
Sorry I'm not trying to be a jerk....but yeah he will turn down 40 million in gurrantees on moral grounds

I could go top ten and take 30 million if it meant I didnt have to punch my mom in the face.

Im not Native American but I have a problem with it. I live in Illinois and didnt have a problem with Chief Illiniwek, for what its worth. But its about how a culture is represented.

vikes_28
02-16-2010, 03:21 PM
I remember when the Skins had to change their logo for a while. I can't remember if that was because the Native Americans didn't like the logo or if it was just another alternate uni.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/features/2002/preview/redskins/redskins_lg.jpg

Best picture I could find.

drowe
02-16-2010, 03:22 PM
I strangely have opinions on this. They are random and cannot be backed up.

-I, personally, am unoffendable. There are very few things I take offense to. Hence, the name 'Redskins' does not offend me personally. I'm also not a Native American. I do, however, think it's a questionable name that is highly dated. If a public figure used that term to describe a Native American, it would be a story. That person would undoubtedly be called a racist. Yet, they represent a team in the most popular sport in the country.

-It also makes me question the virtue of tradition. The Redskins are obviously a proud, storied franchise that trancend 'cool' nicknames and uniforms. Which may or may not be the reason the name is still around. If the Redskins were a team that came around post-merger and didn't have a strong history, changing the name would be less of an issue...Then again, if they came into the league in the 60s or 70s, they never would've had that name to begin with. Hence, tradition can cause problems. Same with the Packers...and this is a mostly unrelated note. They're so tied into the history of the league that it doesn't matter that 'Packers' is a mostly stupid name for a sports franchise...but, can't mess with tradition.

-I also appreciate the irony of them playing in Washington DC. Yes, the same city that can't have a "Christmas Tree" because the term is not politically correct has a sports franchise named the Redskins. Nothing like hypocracy in Washington.

-As far as the Bradford aspect...meh. Doubtful. But, who knows. Maybe he'll sign with an agent from the Cherokee Nation that insists he NOT sign with Washington unless they change their nickname. Or, to a lesser extent, maybe he does choose to speak out, just to raise the issue. Maybe not right away, but once he's established. Probably a non-issue, but definitely worth discussing.

FloridaFootball
02-16-2010, 03:25 PM
I remember when the Skins had to change their logo for a while. I can't remember if that was because the Native Americans didn't like the logo or if it was just another alternate uni.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/features/2002/preview/redskins/redskins_lg.jpg

Best picture I could find.

It was just an alternative uniform that steve spurrier tried out, nothing to do with native americans.

FloridaFootball
02-16-2010, 03:26 PM
I personally find this:

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/29888.gif

more offensive than this:

http://sfu2.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/redskins-logo.jpg

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
02-16-2010, 03:37 PM
Are you Native American? Or just a Redskins fan...

FUNBUNCHER
02-16-2010, 04:05 PM
I remember when the Skins had to change their logo for a while. I can't remember if that was because the Native Americans didn't like the logo or if it was just another alternate uni.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/features/2002/preview/redskins/redskins_lg.jpg

Best picture I could find.
That's the SKins vintage alternate unis from the '50s.
Notice how much Florida State is biting off the Skins sartorial brilliance LOL!!

'Redskin' is a slur and derogatory, but at this point the term has become so abstracted that beyond the reference to a football franchise, the term is basically non-existent.

Caddy
02-16-2010, 04:08 PM
Considering it's a derogatory term for the color of Native Americans skin, I think it bothers quite a few people.

I don't really know much about the term and have never been taught about it's meaning. I did however think it was outdated enough that it didn't really bother people any more.

underscore
02-16-2010, 04:10 PM
Seeing as the majority of Native Americans either don't have an issue with or simply don't care about the mascot PC issue...

jsang74
02-16-2010, 04:11 PM
I've always thought the Redskins should just change the name to Hogs. The nickname came from their O Line under Gibbs I believe?, and they could use the same color scheme. I doubt it will be changed anytime soon though.

FloridaFootball
02-16-2010, 04:21 PM
I've always thought the Redskins should just change the name to Hogs. The nickname came from their O Line under Gibbs I believe?, and they could use the same color scheme. I doubt it will be changed anytime soon though.

Hogs is a slur for pigs.

lol, anyways

yourfavestoner
02-16-2010, 04:31 PM
I personally find this:

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/29888.gif

more offensive than this:

http://sfu2.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/redskins-logo.jpg

How is it more offensive? Because he's smiling? It's pretty much the same logo, albeit a different shade of red.

Now, do I care? **** no.

Do I see how people could be offended? Especially considering the Redskins' history? Absolutely.

We're talking about the last team in professional sports to integrate players of color, a team whose owner openly scorned colored players, a team who the federal government had to FORCE to desegregate with threats of retribution.

But I'm sure the Redskins name was chosen with no bad intentions.

Shane P. Hallam
02-16-2010, 04:32 PM
I don't really know much about the term and have never been taught about it's meaning. I did however think it was outdated enough that it didn't really bother people any more.

It does bother people. I wouldn't say it offends me, but very well is a derogatory term that could easily be changed and still hold the tradition. As the interview before (and it has been brought up to Bradford a few times,) he avoids the question like the plague.

I think the name should be changed, but understand the tradition. And being in DC, most of the talking heads would even be fine with a change. But, a name that was used to describe a race when they were slaves or enemies just doesn't seem like the best nickname for a sports time.

MiWolves
02-16-2010, 04:36 PM
Its purely based on the fact that the native american population is so low.. If a team had a name *black/white racial slur* then the press will go all ballistic over it and how its offensive it is.

FUNBUNCHER
02-16-2010, 04:36 PM
Historically speaking, the term 'savages' was more often used to describe Native Americans more so than 'redskin'. Just saying.

Job
02-16-2010, 07:18 PM
Historically speaking, the term 'savages' was more often used to describe Native Americans more so than 'redskin'. Just saying.

And the point is?

senormysterioso
02-16-2010, 07:39 PM
Historically speaking, the term 'savages' was more often used to describe Native Americans more so than 'redskin'. Just saying.

Yah, I'm sure there are a lot of potential nicknames a team could have...that doesn't change the fact that the one they do have is offensive.

toddmlazarchick
02-16-2010, 08:30 PM
It bothers me, and I'm not one to be bother by this type of stuff at all. But I think its ridiculous they are allowed to have the name, and its only because of how much money they make. Its a negative slur, its pretty damn similar to have a team called the N word. I am 1/8th native american but that really doesnt have anything to do with why it bothers me (as I don't really identify with it).

Who cares. And the comparison to the "N" word is absolutely absurd. You dont take offense to things like that but you are offended? Then why does it bother you if you say that it bothers you for non native american reasons?

SKim172
02-16-2010, 08:45 PM
I'm okay with teams named after Native Americans for the most part. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of the original sentiment wasn't really well-intentioned, but "Chiefs" or "Braves" seem relatively harmless. I don't think the Swedish are too upset about the "Vikings."

But "Redskins" - well, it's an ethnic slur. It's a word that's supposed to be offensive. And people are offended by it. I don't think you should really be surprised.


Based on his comments, I'd say that Sam Bradford isn't necessarily an activist, but I'd say it's a fair bet he doesn't really want to play for the Redskins. And yes, I do think it is something that bears watching. Hey, if Eli can throw a hissy fit about playing for the Chargers just because they sucked, Bradford is entitled to be a little annoyed. I'd say Sanchez would have had similar problems if the Jets were named "Lazy Mexicans."

toddmlazarchick
02-16-2010, 08:49 PM
I'm okay with teams named after Native Americans for the most part. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of the original sentiment wasn't really well-intentioned, but "Chiefs" or "Braves" seem relatively harmless. I don't think the Swedish are too upset about the "Vikings."

But "Redskins" - well, it's an ethnic slur. It's a word that's supposed to be offensive. And people are offended by it. I don't think you should really be surprised.


Based on his comments, I'd say that Sam Bradford isn't necessarily an activist, but I'd say it's a fair bet he doesn't really want to play for the Redskins. And yes, I do think it is something that bears considering. Hey, if Eli can throw a hissy fit about playing for the Chargers just because they suck, Bradford is entitled to be annoyed. I'd say Sanchez would have had similar problems if the Jets were named "Lazy Mexicans."


Im sure he doesn't who would want that much money?

BuddyCHRIST
02-16-2010, 08:56 PM
Who cares. And the comparison to the "N" word is absolutely absurd. You dont take offense to things like that but you are offended? Then why does it bother you if you say that it bothers you for non native american reasons?

Because its racist, they are not and have never been redskins. Some businessman didn't earn the right to use the Native American's likeness. You might not see the comparison to the N word (though its very similar) but do you think people would be aggravated if they were called the "Washington Blacks" because its almost the exact same thing (except Redskins is worse because African Americans are okay with being called black). I don't have a problem with using Native American names, symbols (with blessing) etc in team logos but to use a racist slur is not even in the same ballpark.

Its a dumb stereotype, it bothers me as a person period. Face it, your defending them because your a redskins fan.

SKim172
02-16-2010, 09:04 PM
Im sure he doesn't who would want that much money?

Again, Eli did the same thing and his wallet didn't exactly suffer. Admitted, I don't see a situation where Bradford could be traded to - I doubt there'll be another QB picked in the first that Washington could trade him to.

But this is based on the assumption that Washington will draft him. It might not even get to that point. What do you do when you get an interview for a job you don't really want? You call them up and either you politely and maturely tell them that you feel it's not an ideal fit for you or you politely and maturely make up lies and excuses until they get the idea.

Bradford, I'm sure, could do the same, without embarrassment to either party. "Oh, you want to fly me out to Washington for a workout? Oh, sorry, my cousin's having a wedding and I really can't miss it. Next week, ooh, I've got a workout scheduled somewhere else. Tell you what, call me a few weeks later and I'll know my schedule better then. Thanks, Mr. Snyder. TTYL!" *Click.*

Job
02-16-2010, 09:12 PM
What do you do when you get an interview for a job you don't really want? You call them up and either you politely and maturely tell them that you feel it's not an ideal fit for you or you politely and maturely make up lies and excuses until they get the idea.


Or you can just **** up the interview on purpose.

SKim172
02-16-2010, 09:23 PM
In that case, you down a six-pack before the interview, flirt with the receptionist, and shout Snyder down whenever he wants to talk. He'll think "Wow, glad I got out of that relationship. And you know what? I deserve someone better. I deserve it."

Of course, you might have issues when Snyder and the other owners go for a girl's night out and he blabs all about what a jerk you are. And suddenly you can't get your rocks off if you pay for it.

Metaphorically speaking.

toddmlazarchick
02-16-2010, 09:53 PM
Again, Eli did the same thing and his wallet didn't exactly suffer. Admitted, I don't see a situation where Bradford could be traded to - I doubt there'll be another QB picked in the first that Washington could trade him to.

But this is based on the assumption that Washington will draft him. It might not even get to that point. What do you do when you get an interview for a job you don't really want? You call them up and either you politely and maturely tell them that you feel it's not an ideal fit for you or you politely and maturely make up lies and excuses until they get the idea.

Bradford, I'm sure, could do the same, without embarrassment to either party. "Oh, you want to fly me out to Washington for a workout? Oh, sorry, my cousin's having a wedding and I really can't miss it. Next week, ooh, I've got a workout scheduled somewhere else. Tell you what, call me a few weeks later and I'll know my schedule better then. Thanks, Mr. Snyder. TTYL!" *Click.*

SO you think he could purposely not come for a workout and word of that wouldn't get out to media and other owners and make him look bad? That sounds like a terrific idea! :rolleyes:

toddmlazarchick
02-16-2010, 10:10 PM
Because its racist, they are not and have never been redskins. Some businessman didn't earn the right to use the Native American's likeness. You might not see the comparison to the N word (though its very similar) but do you think people would be aggravated if they were called the "Washington Blacks" because its almost the exact same thing (except Redskins is worse because African Americans are okay with being called black). I don't have a problem with using Native American names, symbols (with blessing) etc in team logos but to use a racist slur is not even in the same ballpark.

Its a dumb stereotype, it bothers me as a person period. Face it, your defending them because your a redskins fan.

Again you have yet to say why you are offended. You just keep saying you are offended just because. Thats a five year olds reason. I dont like it because.

Im defending them because I am a fan of course. But also because its been their name for over 70 years. And over 50 years AFTER the team name came into existence was when we heard about how they wanted it changed. If there was a problem with the name why not say something in 1937 when it was first introduced not in the mid 1990's!

Job
02-16-2010, 10:19 PM
If there was a problem with the name why not say something in 1937 when it was first introduced not in the mid 1990's!

I can't even think of a way to respond to that without getting infracted.

Brown Leader
02-16-2010, 10:25 PM
I can't even think of a way to respond to that without getting infracted.

I second that.

niel89
02-16-2010, 10:50 PM
Redskins is an offensive term. In any other context other than the NFL team most people would definitely agree with that. When it comes to the the NFL team, people dont directly connect the racism with the name so the majority aren't offended.

If Bradford is honestly offended by the team name, then he should avoid playing for them. Althought that is easier said than done.

It sucks for him really though. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I can't even think of a way to respond to that without getting infracted.

Seriously. Some people just dont get it.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
02-16-2010, 11:04 PM
Native Americans>football fans

GoRavens
02-16-2010, 11:06 PM
It would be wise for the Redskins to NOT draft any quarterback in the 1st round.. Jason Campbell is solid and slowly but surely improving; he just needs some protection from his O-Line... If they draft Okung in the 1st, they can easily pickup another skilled QB in the later rounds. Tony Pike (3rd), Zac Robinson (4th), or Rusty Smith (5th) would be better pickups IMO

senormysterioso
02-16-2010, 11:17 PM
Again you have yet to say why you are offended. You just keep saying you are offended just because. Thats a five year olds reason. I dont like it because.

Im defending them because I am a fan of course. But also because its been their name for over 70 years. And over 50 years AFTER the team name came into existence was when we heard about how they wanted it changed. If there was a problem with the name why not say something in 1937 when it was first introduced not in the mid 1990's!

I think maybe I can handle this one...
things that were deemed socially ok in the 1930's-40's:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a20000/3a26000/3a26200/3a26270r.jpg
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/media/life3201.jpg
https://coreycr0708.wikispaces.com/file/view/Order_9066.jpg/34427571/Order_9066.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/08-09/images/segregation.jpg

get it?

FUNBUNCHER
02-17-2010, 12:12 AM
The difficulty for Skins fans such as myself is that beyond a certain point, the term is hard to defend, even if certain Native American groups have publicly stated they aren't particularly offended by the word, 'redskin'.

Also, I believe Sam Bradfordd is 1/16 Cherokee, not one-quarter, so I don't know how much he's connected to his Native American heritage, although I've read in interviews that he is quite proud of his Cherokee heritage.

Consider that Bradford accepted a football scholarship from the University of Oklahoma, which has a much more shameful history in regards to the Cherokee nation and the acquisition of their land to establish the school.

Still, here is a quote from Bradford about his Cherokee heritage, (and why if he's drafted by the Skins, it's an unknown wildcard to predict what the future will bring for the Skins franchise):

" It's something I'm definitely proud of, and I'll never shy away from it. But I don't know probably as much as I should know or as much as some people may think I know."
At the same time, he says, "God has blessed me with a great platform. If I can use that in a positive way and be a role model for younger kids, set a good example for them, I think it's a really good thing."

IF he's picked by the SKins, I wouldn't be surprised if the attendant media attention may make Bradford feel very 'Cherokee' and potentially pose a problem for him and his future employees.

My point about 'savages' being more of a slur than 'redskin' is that in historical documents, you see the word 'savage' used more prevalently than 'redskin', which is mainly a term used more often in old Western movies.

Given, if you wouldn't call a Native American 'redskin' to his face, the word should be considered offensive, but for purely selfish reasons I hope there's a middle ground that doesn't require the Skins to change their name.

Maybe Snyder could pay an annual sin tax to a national tribal group as some form of penance?

HTTR

FlyingElvis
02-17-2010, 09:37 AM
^ Great points.


I think the word "offended" is part of the problem. Personally, I am not offended by anything, really. But I can see the shades of gray that constitute "Right and Wrong" and the name of Washington's team is far from gray. It's just a horrible slur.

Should they change it? I don't really care, but nobody should be foolish enough to ever defend the name as acceptable. Defending it as part of a tradition, saying it should stay because of some historical significance, or just claiming a name change is too much for 'Skins fans to bear is fine. Claiming there's nothing wrong with it is just plain ignorant.

I think maybe I can handle this one...
things that were deemed socially ok in the 1930's-40's:

get it?

It's sad that a post like this is even necessary. +rep for tackling the tough one, even if it should be obvious.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2010, 10:25 AM
Again you have yet to say why you are offended. You just keep saying you are offended just because. Thats a five year olds reason. I dont like it because.

Im defending them because I am a fan of course. But also because its been their name for over 70 years. And over 50 years AFTER the team name came into existence was when we heard about how they wanted it changed. If there was a problem with the name why not say something in 1937 when it was first introduced not in the mid 1990's!

Wow. Just....wow.

The stupidity on this forum leaves me at a loss for words sometimes.

You should look into the history of the team you love so much. They're the most racist franchise in the history of sports.

BuddyCHRIST
02-17-2010, 10:38 AM
Again you have yet to say why you are offended. You just keep saying you are offended just because. Thats a five year olds reason. I dont like it because.

Im defending them because I am a fan of course. But also because its been their name for over 70 years. And over 50 years AFTER the team name came into existence was when we heard about how they wanted it changed. If there was a problem with the name why not say something in 1937 when it was first introduced not in the mid 1990's!

I am offended because its racist simple, the same way racism against other race I have no heritage with offends me. It should offend everyone whether or not you have a rooting interest, its just wrong.

And I don't know if you took middle school history, but the Native Americans haven't exactly been given a great deal in our whole history. I'm sure in 1937 people really listened to anything Native Americans had to say.

toddmlazarchick
02-17-2010, 01:14 PM
Wow. Just....wow.

The stupidity on this forum leaves me at a loss for words sometimes.

You should look into the history of the team you love so much. They're the most racist franchise in the history of sports.

Perhaps we should change our logo to a picture of the white man taking land off native americans instead of a picture of a glorified native american chief. Then we can change our song to "**** on the Indians" instead of "Hail to the Chief". Native americans might have found the term Redskins offensive over the years but by no means was it ever an attempt to be racist.

Job
02-17-2010, 01:19 PM
I should call my team the ******* with no racist attempt at all, and then proceed to create a logo of a glorified black tribe chief instead of a slave, all while having the crowd sing some crappy tune about an african tribe. Let's then see how the black community reacts.

Addict
02-17-2010, 01:20 PM
Considering it's a derogatory term for the color of Native Americans skin, I think it bothers quite a few people.

to be safe I think it should be changed into Rednecks.

toddmlazarchick
02-18-2010, 12:31 PM
I should call my team the ******* with no racist attempt at all, and then proceed to create a logo of a glorified black tribe chief instead of a slave, all while having the crowd sing some crappy tune about an african tribe. Let's then see how the black community reacts.

Try and tell me you would be singing a different tune if it was your team. :rolleyes:

RealityCheck
02-18-2010, 12:33 PM
I don't think he would have a problem with it.

SKim172
02-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Try and tell me you would be singing a different tune if it was your team. :rolleyes:

Okay.



Yes, I would.



OH WHAT AUDACITY




(and I think you mean "would not be singing a different tune if it was your team." Otherwise, you're agreeing with us.)

Babylon
02-18-2010, 01:29 PM
to be safe I think it should be changed into Rednecks.

Is George "Makaka" Allen still involved with the team?